A. Di Biase

In two related actions arising from a construction dispute, the Concord Parties moved to stay the Varone Parties' breach of trust claims under the Construction Lien Act upon payment into court of the admitted claim amount.

The Varone Parties brought a cross-motion to withhold disclosure and production of certain documents until a threshold issue regarding the nature of the services agreement was determined.

The court granted the stay, finding that the trust claims would be moot once fully secured by the payment into court, and that a stay would result in material efficiencies without causing injustice.

The court dismissed the discovery motion, concluding that the threshold issue was not clearly severable from the other claims, including fraud and conspiracy, and that the Varone Parties would not suffer serious prejudice from full disclosure.

The plaintiff brought a motion to remove the defendants' law firm from the record due to a conflict of interest.

The law firm had previously represented the plaintiff in labour and employment matters, during which it received confidential information relevant to the current litigation involving alleged employee poaching by the defendants.

The court found that the law firm received relevant confidential information, the matters were sufficiently related, and the confidentiality screens implemented were inadequate.

The motion to remove the law firm was granted to preserve public confidence in the administration of justice.

The plaintiffs, having succeeded in a 19-day trial and obtained judgment for $614,624 plus $30,000 in punitive damages, sought costs on a partial and substantial indemnity basis totaling $531,272.25.

The defendants argued the costs were excessive, particularly for motions resolved by consent and for alleged over-preparation.

The court, applying principles of reasonableness and the objectives of modern costs rules, reduced the partial indemnity costs for consent motions and the substantial indemnity costs for trial preparation, finding over-preparation.

The court awarded total costs of $353,109.53, including fees and disbursements.

The plaintiffs, V.P.M. Marketing and Media Consulting Inc. and Patricia Mitchell, sued the defendants, Stephen Jenne, Barbara Jenne, and BAMS Marketing Inc., for breach of contract, fiduciary duty, and interference with economic relations, seeking damages and punitive damages.

The defendants counterclaimed for unpaid commissions.

The court found Stephen Jenne to be a dependent contractor who owed and breached fiduciary duties and the duty of good faith to VPM by secretly orchestrating the transfer of VPM's clients to his own company, BAMS Marketing Inc., after the death of VPM's founder.

The court awarded the plaintiffs $614,624 in compensatory damages for lost profits and $30,000 in punitive damages.

The defendants' counterclaim was dismissed due to lack of proof, the application of the Limitations Act, and laches/acquiescence.

Following a motion and cross-motion that resulted in mixed success for both parties, the court invited written costs submissions.

The moving party sought partial indemnity costs exceeding $11,000, while the responding party sought approximately $8,800 or alternatively no order as to costs.

The court observed that the motion prompted the parties to moderate their positions and engage in compromise.

Taking into account the mixed success and proportionality considerations, the court exercised its discretion to fix a lump sum costs award payable to the moving party.

The plaintiff brought a productions motion in a contractual dispute concerning a 2007 central financing agreement.

The plaintiff alleged the defendant breached the agreement due to pressure from GM dealers and sought production of documents relating to a proposed Consillium financing structure, GM dealer meeting records, internal credit policies, and redacted communications.

The court found several categories of documents relevant to the pleaded theory and ordered production of documents concerning the creation of Consillium and internal policy materials, including menus of credit policy titles.

The defendant was also required to request relevant records from a dealers’ association and provide sufficient descriptions for documents claimed as privileged.

The motion and cross‑motion resulted in mixed success, with further costs submissions invited.